set_visibility

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action (show/hide) without mentioning side effects, reversibility, interactions with other layers, or the output format. It does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it also fails to provide any meaningful behavioral detail beyond the obvious action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and is efficient. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices essential information, but for a tool this simple, the conciseness is acceptable. It could be improved by adding a second sentence with parameter details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 2 required parameters with no descriptions, and the description provides no guidance on how to call it. There is a known output schema, but the description does not mention what the tool returns. Given the simplicity of the tool, a slightly longer description could easily cover the missing parameter and usage context, but it currently leaves the agent under-informed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source for parameter semantics. It does not mention 'layer' or 'visible' at all, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's field names and types. There is no added meaning about what values are expected, what 'visible' controls, or any relationships between parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('show or hide') and a clear object ('a layer'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools that set other properties (e.g., set_properties, set_layer). It clearly communicates the tool's core function without ambiguity. However, it could further clarify the scope (e.g., whether it affects only the current view), so it doesn't earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or any conditions under which using this tool is appropriate. No sibling references or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.